HEYSHAM FLAT 11Th July 2017 Completed By: Mandy Knott

Fisheries in EMS Habitats Regulations Assessment for Amber and Green risk categories

NWIFCA-MB-EMS-SEED MUSSEL HEYSHAM FLAT 11th July 2017 Completed by: Mandy Knott

Site: Morecambe Bay and Duddon Estuary European Designated Sites: UK0013027 Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) UK 9005031 Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area (SPA) UK11045 Morecambe Bay Ramsar UK9005031 Duddon Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) UK11022 Duddon Estuary Ramsar Morecambe Bay and Duddon Estuary pSPA European Marine Site: Morecambe Bay and Duddon Estuary

Qualifying Feature(s): SAC and Ramsar H1110. Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time; Subtidal sandbanks H1130. Estuaries H1140. Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide; Intertidal mudflats and sandflats H1150. Coastal lagoons H1160. Large shallow inlets and bays H1170. Reefs H1220. Perennial vegetation of stony banks; Coastal shingle vegetation outside the reach of waves (NON MARINE) H1310. Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand; Glasswort and other annuals colonising mud and sand; Pioneer saltmarsh H1330. Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) H2110. Embryonic shifting dunes (NON MARINE) H2120. Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes"); Shifting dunes with marram (NON MARINE) H2130. Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes"); Dune grassland (NON MARINE) H2150. Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea); Coastal dune heathland (NON MARINE) H2170. Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae); Dunes with creeping willow (NON MARINE) H2190. Humid dune slacks (NON MARINE) S1166. Triturus cristatus; Great crested newt (NON MARINE) Natterjack Toad (NON MARINE)

SPA and Ramsar A026 Egretta garzetta; Little egret (non-breeding) A038 Cygnus Cygnus; Whooper swan (non-breeding) A040 Anser brachyrhynchus; Pink-footed goose (non-breeding) A048 Tadorna tadorna; Common shelduck (non-breeding) A050 Anas Penelope; Wigeon - (non-breeding – Ramsar only) A054 Anas acuta; Northern pintail (non-breeding) A063 Somateria mollissima; Common eider (non-breeding – Ramsar only) A067 Bucephala clangula; Goldeneye - (non-breeding – Ramsar only) A069 Mergus serrator; Red-breasted merganser - (non-breeding – Ramsar only) A130 Haematopus ostralegus; Eurasian oystercatcher (non-breeding) A137 Charadrius hiaticula; Ringed plover (non-breeding) A140 Pluvialis apricaria; European golden plover (non-breeding) A141 Pluvialis squatarola; Grey plover (non-breeding) A142 Vanellus vanellus; Lapwing - (non-breeding – Ramsar only) A143 Calidris canutus; Red knot (non-breeding) A144 Calidris alba; Sanderling (non-breeding) A149 Calidris alpina alpina; Dunlin (non-breeding) A151 Calidris pugnax; Ruff (non-breeding) A156 Limosa limosa; Black-tailed godwit (non-breeding) A157 Limosa lapponica; Bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) A160 Numenius arquata; Eurasian curlew (non-breeding) A162 Tringa totanus; Common redshank (non-breeding) A169 Arenaria interpres; Ruddy turnstone (non-breeding) A176 Larus melancephalus; Mediterranean gull (non-breeding) A183 Larus fuscus; Lesser black-backed gull (Breeding, non-breeding) A184 Larus argentatus; Herring gull (Breeding) A191 Sterna sandvicensis; Sandwich tern (Breeding) A193 Sterna hirundo; Common tern (Breeding) A195 Sterna albifrons; Little tern (Breeding) Phalacrocorax carbo; Cormorant – (non-breeding – Ramsar only) Podiceps cristatus; Great crested grebe - (non-breeding – Ramsar only) Seabird assemblage PageWaterbird 1 ofassemblage 83 Site sub-feature(s)/Notable Communites:

SAC and Ramsar Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time – Subtidal coarse sediment, subtidal mixed sediments, subtidal sand, subtidal mud. Estuaries - Intertidal mud, intertidal sand and muddy sand, intertidal mixed sediments, intertidal coarse sediment, intertidal rock, intertidal stony reef, intertidal biogenic reef: mussel beds, subtidal coarse sediment, subtidal mixed sediments, subtidal sand, subtidal mud, Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand, Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae). Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide; Intertidal mudflats and sandflats – Intertidal mud, intertidal sand and muddy sand, intertidal mixed sediments, intertidal seagrass beds, intertidal coarse sediment. Coastal lagoons Large shallow inlets and bays – Intertidal mud, intertidal sand and muddy sand, intertidal mixed sediments, intertidal seagrass beds, intertidal coarse sediment, intertidal rock, intertidal stony reef, intertidal biogenic reef: mussel beds, intertidal biogenic reef: Sabellaria spp., subtidal stony reef, circalittoral rock, subtidal coarse sediment, subtidal mixed sediments, subtidal sand, subtidal mud, Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand, Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae). Reefs – Circalittoral rock, intertidal biogenic reef: mussel beds, intertidal biogenic reef: Sabellaria spp., intertidal rock, intertidal stony reef, subtidal stony reef. Perennial vegetation of stony banks: Coastal shingle vegetation outside the reach of waves Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand: Glasswort and other annuals colonising mud and sand; Pioneer saltmarsh Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) (referred to as Saltmarsh) Embryonic shifting dunes Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”); Shifting dunes with marram Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”); Dune grassland Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea); Coastal dune heathland Dunes with Salix repens spp. Argentea (Salicion arenariae); dunes with creeping willow Humid dune slacks Great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) Supporting habitat: Great crested newt (NON MARINE) – coastal sand dunes Natterjack Toad (NON MARINE)- coastal sand dunes

SPA and Ramsar Annual vegetation of drift lines, Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-puccinellietalia maritimae), coastal lagoons, freshwater and coastal grazing marsh, intertidal biogenic reef: mussel beds, intertidal coarse sediment, intertidal mud, intertidal rock, intertidal sand and muddy sand, intertidal seagrass beds, intertidal stony reef, Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand, water column.

Generic sub-feature(s): Intertidal mud and sand, Intertidal mud, Seagrass, Saltmarsh spp., Brittlestar beds, Subtidal muddy sand, Intertidal boulder and cobble reef, Subtidal boulder and cobble reef, Sabellaria spp. reef, Intertidal boulder and cobble reef, Surface feeding birds, Estuarine birds, Intertidal mud and sand, Intertidal boulder and cobble reef, Saltmarsh spp., Coastal lagoons.

High Level Conservation Objectives: Morecambe Bay SAC With regard to the SAC and the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed above), and subject to natural change; Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its Qualifying Features, by maintaining or restoring;

lifying natural habitats

ribution of qualifying species within the site.

Morecambe Bay SPA With regard to the SPA and the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified and the Ramsar Site and the wetland habitats and/or species for which the site has been listed (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed above), and subject to natural change; Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the wise use of wetlands across the UK, by maintaining or restoring:

e qualifying features, and,

Page 2 of 83 Duddon Estuary SPA With regard to the SPA and the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified and the Ramsar Site and the wetland habitats and/or species for which the site has been listed (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed above), and subject to natural change; Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the wise use of wetlands across the UK, by maintaining or restoring: ructure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features

the site.

Fishing activities assessed:

Gear type(s):

Hand-gathered – Seed Mussel (Mytilus edulis)

Page 3 of 83 1. Introduction

1.1 Need for an HRA assessment

THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (AS AMENDED)

The NWIFCA proposes to authorise a seed mussel hand-gathered fishery at Heysham Flat, in Morecambe Bay by derogating against minimum landing size for mussel. This proposal is classed as a plan or project. The area lies within a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’). The proposal site is within the Morecambe Bay and Duddon Estuary SPA and the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which are European sites. The site is also listed as Morecambe Bay Ramsar site and also notified at a national level as Morecambe Bay Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

As a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, the NWIFCA should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have. Under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, NWIFCA has undertaken an Appropriate Assessment of the proposal, in accordance with Regulation 61. Natural England is a statutory consultee on the Appropriate Assessment stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process, and their advice is incorporated into this document.

1.2 Proposal

The NWIFCA proposes to authorise a limited hand-gathered fishery for seed mussel in the area shown on the map at Annex G from (dates to be confirmed but likely from end of July to end of December), under written authorisation against NWIFCA Byelaw 3 para. 6, minimum landing size.

The purpose of this site specific assessment document is to assess whether or not in the view of NWIFCA the fishing activity of hand-gathering seed mussel at the Heysham Flat, Morecambe Bay, has a likely significant effect on the qualifying features of the Morecambe Bay and Duddon Estuary European Site, and on the basis of this assessment whether or not it can be concluded that hand- gathering seed mussel at Heysham Flat, Morecambe Bay will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of this European Site.

Page 4 of 83 2. Information about the EMS

(See cover pages).

3. Interest feature(s) of the EMS categorised as ‘Red’ risk and overview of management measure(s) (if applicable)

3.1 The Morecambe Bay and Duddon European Site interest features, boulder and cobble reef, Sabellaria alveolata reef and Seagrass beds are protected from all bottom towed gears, in addition Seagrass beds are protected from bait collecting or working a fishery by hand or using a hand operated implement through a prohibition under NWIFCA Byelaw 6, introduced in May 2014 (Annex A2).

4. Information about the fishing activities within the site

4.1 Background

It is important to note that mussel beds in Morecambe Bay are almost exclusively found on hard substrate - post-glacial moraine skears – and consequently respond quite differently to fishing pressures than in other fisheries such as the Wash in the UK and the Waddensee in the Netherlands where mussel beds are underlain by soft substrates. There are two distinct mussel resources in Morecambe Bay which can be highly variable in abundance and distribution. These are size mussel (>45mm), and undersize (seed and part-grown) mussel.

A feature of Morecambe Bay is the irregular but frequent occurrence of large and extensive mussel spat settlements. These settlements are usually very dense with little or no embyssment to the underlying substrate and quickly build up large amounts of sediment and pseudo-faeces (mussel mud). Within a very short space of time these populations become unstable and vulnerable to erosion through weather and/or tide, or predation from vast numbers of starfish. They are referred to as “ephemeral” beds (Dare, 1971 & 1976) and the Authority takes the line that although they are undersized they should be fished as early as possible as they would otherwise be washed out of the fishery and a valuable commercial resource lost. The mussel is fished, either by hand-raking or by specialised mussel dredgers, neither of which impact the cobble and boulder skears due to the deep soft mud layer on which the mussel sits. The harvested mussel is re- deposited in another area to grow on until of a commercially viable size. The number of mussel cultivation sites has grown in areas such as the Wash, Northern Irish loughs, and the Menai Strait, the latter of which is an MSC accredited sustainable fishery. Consultation via the Bivalve Mollusc Working Group, a multi-sectoral group facilitated by NWIFCA, is carried out with the industry and conservation interests prior to authorisations to fish being issued by the Authority.

Size mussel beds also develop in areas such as Heysham Flat (lowest skears), the bottom end of Foulney and rarely in the Duddon Estuary (Hardacre). However, these are not regular in their occurrence, and mussel at Foulney becomes ‘pearled’ at around 42mm and therefore not of great value commercially. Fishing effort for size mussel is low with only hand-gathering permitted and generally prosecuted by a maximum of 40 Byelaw 3 permit holders.

A map showing the distribution of these skears around the bay is shown in Annex D.

Page 5 of 83 4.2 Management of Seed Mussel Stock

Certain conditions need to occur for the NWIFCA to authorise fishing of seed mussel, namely that the stock has been assessed as in imminent likelihood of being lost to the fishery through natural causes, and subsequently that a high proportion of it will not grow through to reach size; and that conditions pertain to fishing being possible without risk of damage to the cobble and boulder substrate conservation features. These include:

 settlement in high abundance and density, and;  fast growing and high deposits of pseudofaeces (mussel mud), and;  the mussel mud becoming very soft and loose and at risk of being washed out, taking the mussel with it;  or dense settlement being heavily predated on by thousands of starfish.

The fishery is highly variable depending on the vagaries of the stock, and the changes in the dynamic environment of Morecambe Bay and have to be assessed on a year by year basis. The fishery has been subject to Habitats Regulations Assessments for many years. The history of this fishery can be found in past HRAs.

4.3 Seed Mussel Hand-gathering

Mussel aquaculture is an important contributor to the local economies of areas such as North Wales and Northern Ireland. Seed mussel that would be lost to commercial fishing in one area can be harvested, relaid in more stable areas and grown on, as in rotation farming, until of a marketable size. While on lays in these areas it provides a resource for the local bird and fish populations. If it survives it can provide a 3:1 return.

4.4 Hand-gathering

Mussel has been gathered from the shoreline by hand for centuries. Within the NWIFCA District it is still permissible when mussel beds are open for 5kg per person per day of size mussel to be collected for human consumption.

Commercial activity is heavily regulated under Byelaw and policed by NWIFCA Enforcement Officers. It is carried out by using quad bikes, or very rarely tractors, to access the mussel beds and hand raking mussel into net bags (Annex E). These are then washed to remove mud and the clean mussel put into sacks, which are transported away from the bed by quad, and often sold to buyers at the top of the beach.

4.5 Regulation of Seed Mussel Hand-gathering

NWIFCA regulates fisheries in its District through a suite of byelaws. Regulations relating specifically to seed mussel hand-gathering are reproduced as annexes (Annex A)and are:

NWIFCA Byelaw 3 - Permit to fish for cockles and mussels NWSFC Byelaw 12 - Restrictions on fishing for bivalve Molluscan shellfish (in the southern part of the District including Morecambe Bay) NWSFC Byelaw 13a - Cockles and mussels – management of the fishery NWSFC Byelaw 16 - Shellfishery – temporary closure

Page 6 of 83

4.6 Biosecurity

Morecambe Bay is currently shellfish disease free and the Authority considers it a priority to maintain this status. The non-native species Japweed (Sargassum muticum) and Leathery Sea-squirt (Styela clava) have previously been recorded in the north of the Bay around the Walney Channel. In order to implement effective measures to prevent the introduction and / or spread of diseases or non-natives the Authority has developed and published a Biosecurity Plan, detailing controls and conditions that will be applied to all commercial shellfish activities. The Biosecurity Plan seeks to ensure that consignments and/or the areas from which they come, are regularly and thoroughly checked for invasive non-native invasive species (INNS). The NWIFCA science team will monitor this fishery for any INNS.

4.7 Protection of Sabellaria alveolata reef

Historically NWIFCA (and its predecessors NW&NWSFC and NWSFC) have issued written authorisation to harvest undersize mussel at Heysham Flat with a set of conditions, including a demarcation line and exclusion zone in order to protect the Sabellaria alveolata reef feature on the site.

The NWIFCA have also worked in partnership with Cumbria Wildlife Trust to produce a five year time series of survey reports on the Condition and Distribution of the worm community (http://www.nw-ifca.gov.uk/policies-and-reports/scientific-reports-publications-archive/) The NWIFCA Senior Scientist also carried out a research project on the relationship between the mussel and the Sabellaria alveolata in 2008-09 (Knott, 2009). All this research provides evidence on the ephemeral nature of the honeycomb worm reef, and that there is a constant competition occurring between the mussel which settles in mass density, smothering the reef with its mussel mud and effectively killing the worms. These in turn recruit to new areas on the skear which at that time are devoid of mussel. Interestingly it has been observed over a number of years that sandmason worm (Lanice conchilega) are party to this process as they appear first, presumably stabilising the highly mobile sand and providing a firmer surface on which the Sabellaria alveolata larvae can settle. However it is not long before the mussel recruitment begins again, settling in the tubes of the worms and the cycle starts over again.

Conservation Advice from Statutory Nature Conservation Advisors, Natural England, is that the main historical reef area on the skear(Annex C), should be included in a fishery exclusion zone in order to protect the underlying 3-D reef structures to aid in future recruitment. This advice has been incorporated into management in years when the reef has appeared highly degraded by the mussel (eg. 2016), when exclusion zones have been implemented and enforced. Areas of live Sabellaria alveolata have also been included to protect potential adults.

The NWIFCA approved a long-term vehicular and fishing exclusion zone with regular monitoring and annual review of the main area of honeycomb worm reef at Heysham Flat in order to protect the reef features and to ensure the fishery is Habitats Regulations compliant (NWIFCA – TSB. 2016).

Page 7 of 83 4.8 Current Status of Mussel Stocks in Morecambe Bay

The NWIFCA has carried out stock assessments and inspections of cockle and other mussel beds around Morecambe Bay over the spring low tides of May / June 2017 to provide data to inform this assessment. All data and mapping is provided in Annex F.

There is an estimated minimum biomass of 3911 tonnes on the skears at Heysham Flat at 30th June 2017 – the majority of which is seed mussel likely to wash out in autumn storms.

Page 8 of 83 5. Test for Likely Significant Effect (LSE)

The Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is a step-wise process and is first subject to a coarse test of whether a plan or project will cause a likely significant effect on an EMS1.

Is the activity/activities directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site for nature conservation? NO

5.1 Table 1: Assessment of LSE

Features: All qualifying features and sub-features have been screened out other than those in the table below, due to there being no interaction between the fishing activity and the qualifying features and sub-features.

Pressures: All pressures from the Advice on Operations table provided in the Morecambe and Duddon Estuary Conservation Advice package have been screened out, other than the pressures in the following table, due to the nature of the fishing activity.

1 Managing Natura 2000 sites: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm

Page 9 of 83 Qualifying Sub-feature Potential Sensitivity Potential for Justification and evidence Feature pressure(s) Likely Significant Effect? H1130. Intertidal stony Abrasion/disturbance of Sensitive Yes Due to the nature of the mussel and Estuaries reef the substrate on the mussel mud, hand-raking skims the seed surface of the seabed mussel from its underlying layers of H1170. Reefs mussel mud, ensuring no contact with the cobble and boulder reef beneath. However vehicle access and hand raking Intertidal may cause abrasion and disturbance to biogenic reef: the underlying 3-D Sabellaria alveolata including mussel reef feature. and Sabellaria communities Penetration and/or Sensitive No Due to the nature of the mussel and disturbance of the mussel mud, hand-raking skims the seed substrate below the mussel from its underlying layers of surface of the seabed, mussel mud, ensuring no contact with the including abrasion cobble and boulder reef, and no penetration below it.

Genetic modification & Sensitive No The area is shellfish disease and INNS translocation of indigenous free. Industry are encouraged to use species recognised procedures to ensure equipment is clean of INNS. Consignments are monitored closely through CEFAS shellfish hygiene inspections, and NWIFCA liaison with regulators in Northern Ireland and North Wales to ensure risk of translocation is minimal.

Litter Sensitive Yes Up to 40 hand-gatherers could deposit litter.

Physical change (to Sensitive No Due to the nature of the mussel and another seabed type) mussel mud, hand-raking skims the seed mussel from its underlying layers of mussel mud, ensuring no contact with the cobble and boulder reef, and no penetration below it. The cobble and boulder substrate remains intact.

Removal of non-target Sensitive No There is little or no by-catch in this highly species selective fishery.

The proposal is to remove mussel from Removal of target species Sensitive Yes the skear. Mussel beds are a characteristic and fluctuating community of the intertidal boulder and cobble skear interest sub-feature.

Page 10 of 83 SPA Features Supporting Potential Pressure Sensitivity Potential Justification and Evidence including Ramsar Habitats for Likely assessed Significant above Effect Egret Visual disturbance Sensitive Yes Egret feed intertidally on fish. A026 Egretta garzetta; Little egret

Waders Removal of non-target Sensitive No There is little or no by-catch in this highly A130 Haematopus species (Non-retained selective fishery. ostralegus; Eurasian Bycatch) oystercatcher A137 Charadrius Removal of target species Some Yes Species sensitive to removal of hiaticula; Ringed plover (mussels) species mussels as a food resource: A140 Pluvialis apricaria; sensitive, Common eider European golden plover others Eurasian oystercatcher A141 Pluvialis screened Red knot squatarola; Grey plover out Herring gull A142 Vanellus vanellus; Visual disturbance Sensitive Yes Waders frequent the intertidal beds, Lapwing and are within vicinity of this fishery. A143 Calidris canutus; Red knot A144 Calidris alba; Sanderling A149 Calidris alpina alpina; Dunlin A151 Calidris pugnax; Ruff A156 Limosa limosa; Black-tailed godwit A157 Limosa lapponica; Bar-tailed godwit A160 Numenius arquata; Eurasian curlew A162 Tringa totanus; Common redshank A169 Arenaria interpres; Ruddy turnstone Dabbling Ducks Removal of non-target Sensitive No There is little or no by-catch in this highly A048 Tadorna tadorna; species (Non-retained selective fishery. Common shelduck Bycatch) A050 Anas Penelope; Wigeon Removal of target species No No N/A – not a food resource of dabbling A054 Anas acuta; (mussels) ducks. Northern pintail Visual disturbance Sensitive Yes Dabbling ducks feed in near shore areas in the vicinity of this fishery.

Diving Birds Removal of non-target Sensitive No There is little or no by-catch in this highly A063 Somateria species (Non-retained selective fishery. mollissima; Common Bycatch) eider (Breeding) A067 Bucephala clangula; Goldeneye Removal of target species Sensitive Yes for Species sensitive to removal of A069 Mergus serrator; (mussels) eider mussels as a food resource: Red-breasted Eiders may utilising the bed as a food merganser resource. The other diving ducks feed Phalacrocorax carbo; on fish. Cormorant (Ramsar Visual disturbance Sensitive Yes for Goldeneye and Great Crested Grebe only) eider mainly found on inshore or freshwater Podiceps cristatus; areas but not on this skear. Main Great crested grebe aggregations occur during winter. (Ramsar only) Red Breasted Merganser and Cormorant sometimes found on intertidal areas but this skear not considered important area for them.

Eiders may be utilising the bed for feeding or loafing nearby at the time of fishing activity and sensitive to visual disturbance.

Terns Removal of non-target Sensitive No There is little or no by-catch in this highly A191 Sterna species selective fishery. sandvicensis; Sandwich (Non-retained Bycatch) tern (Breeding) A193 Sterna hirundo; Common tern Removal of target species No No N/A – mussels not a food resource of

Page 11 of 83 (Breeding) (mussels) terns. A195 Sterna albifrons; Little tern (Breeding) Visual disturbance Sensitive No It is understood that the fishable area is not an important area of the SPA for these bird species.

Gulls Removal of non-target Sensitive No There is little or no by-catch in this highly A176 Larus species selective fishery. melancephalus; (Non-retained Bycatch) Mediterranean gull A183 Larus fuscus; Lesser black-backed Removal of target species Sensitive Yes Herring gulls are known to utilise the gull (Breeding) (mussels) mussel beds for feeding – A184 Larus argentatus; observations suggest they are feeding Herring gull (Breeding) on crabs and starfish but literature suggests they utilise the mussel food resource. Visual disturbance Sensitive Yes Gulls may be feeding on the skear.

Is the potential scale or Alone OR In-combination3 magnitude of any effect likely to be significant?2 Yes Yes

Comments : Comments :

These activities also occur at the site:  Beam trawl (whitefish)  Beam Trawl (Shrimp)  Pots and Creels  Light otter trawl  Fixed nets (gill, trammel, entangling)  Longlines  Shrimp push-net  Fyke and stakenet  Hand working (size mussels)  Dredge (seed mussels)

In combination effects of seed mussel dredge fishery included. In combination effects of all other fishery activities will be assessed when all initial HRAs for a site are completed.

Have NE been consulted on this LSE test? If yes, Yes – see below what was NE’s advice?

2 Yes or uncertain: completion of AA required. If no: LSE required only. 3 If conclusion of LSE alone an in-combination assessment is not required.

Page 12 of 83 6. Appropriate Assessment

Potential risks to features

6.1 SAC Features / sub-features / SPA supporting habitats

Intertidal biogenic reef: including mussel and Sabellaria alveolata communities

6.1.1 Potential Impacts i) Abrasion/disturbance of the Sabellaria alveolata reef feature; ii) Litter; iii) Removal of target species from biogenic mussel bed communities

6.1.2 Exposure i) Abrasion/disturbance of the Sabellaria alveolata reef feature could damage the reef building capacity on the skear; ii) Litter could pose potential threat to wildlife, especially birds through ingestion or entanglement; iii) Removal of target species could change the invertebrate community composition of the skear.

6.2 SPA and Ramsar Features

SPA and Ramsar birds – little egret, Common eider, Eurasian oystercatcher, Red knot, Herring gull – other birds frequenting the intertidal area: Ringed plover, European golden plover, Grey plover, Lapwing, Sanderling, Dunlin, Black-tailed godwit, Bar-tailed godwit, Eurasian curlew, Common redshank, Ruddy turnstone, Common shelduck, Wigeon, Northern pintail, Gulls.

6.2.1 Exposure i) Removal of target species (mussels) as prey resource for Common eider, Eurasian oystercatcher, Red knot, Herring gull; ii) Visual disturbance - little egret, Common eider, Eurasian oystercatcher, Red knot, Herring gull – other birds frequenting the intertidal area: Ringed plover, European golden plover, Grey plover, Lapwing, Sanderling, Dunlin, Black-tailed godwit, Bar-tailed godwit, Eurasian curlew, Common redshank, Ruddy turnstone, Common shelduck, Wigeon, Northern pintail, Gulls.

6.2.3 Potential Impacts – SPA Features i) Removal of target species (mussels)

Mussels form part of an important prey resource for eiders, oystercatchers and knot. Gulls are opportunistic scavengers and may utilise any mussel resource. If bird populations are to be maintained in healthy condition, sufficient shellfish to meet their demands must remain for them.

If fisheries remove essential prey and there is a lack of food, the impacts on these species will vary at different times of year. For example, prey resource requirements will be far greater during autumn and at the beginning of winter than at other times of the year, as enough resource needs to be present for all the birds arriving from summer breeding grounds needing to get into condition to survive the winter when energy requirements are higher. Over-wintering waders require to put on

Page 13 of 83 weight and get into best condition in spring prior to migrations north for the summer, or they will not survive long flight distances and suffer high mortalities. Equally the breeding eider population of Morecambe Bay needs to get into prime condition prior to mating in order to reproduce successfully. This applies to both sexes but in particular to females who once on the nest do not feed again until ducklings have fledged, a period of up to three weeks. There have been concerns raised over the Bay’s eider population, its sex ratio skew (3:1 males to females) and the lack of success in breeding.

Oystercatchers eat a range of sizes of mussels. Although the birds will eat alternative prey species when shellfish are scarce, these prey often are not as nutritious and do not enable birds to survive as well, and in such good body condition, as when shellfish are abundant (Atkinson et al 2003; Goss-Custard et al 2004).

Knot eat smaller bivalves with lower and upper size limits of around 5 and 12.5mm shell length respectively (Bell et al 2001).

Eiders generally feed on a mixed range of sizes of bivalves, although it is understood they will consume high quantities of small mussels when they are available. ii) Visual disturbance

Visual disturbance could impact on condition of birds feeding or loafing in the area, by causing unnecessary energy expenditure if flushed and taking to flight. For birds feeding near the affected areas it could also reduce feeding times, and increase competition if birds are forced to concentrate into reduced feeding areas.

7 EXPOSURE TO PRESSURES

SAC Features

7.1.1 Abrasion/disturbance of the Sabellaria alveolata reef feature;

The adult sabellarid polychaete Sabellaria alveolata lives inside self-constructed tubes made from sand grains, which are cemented together with an organic cement (Wilson. 1968b. Gruet. 1984. Porras et al. 1996). The species is highly gregarious, and juxtaposed tubes are packed in tightly formed masses with a distinctive honeycomb-like appearance to create biogenic reefs in the form of hummocks, sheets or massive formations (Dubois et al. 2005. Dubois et al. 2007. Gruet. 1986. UKBAP. 2008. Wilson. 1971). As such, Sabellaria alveolata is classed as an ecosystem engineer (Dubois et al. 2006b) and may be associated with greater species richness and biodiversity (Mettam et al. 1994. Dubois et al. 2002), although some researchers maintain the level of biodiversity varies with the condition of the reef (Porras et al. 1996). Reefs are found on the western Mediterranean and the eastern Atlantic coasts (particularly the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel, France), the English Channel and the Scottish coast of the Solway Firth (Gruet. 1986. Wilson. 1971. UKBAP 2008). The British Isles represents the most northern extent of its range.

An inter-tidal active suspension-feeding species, (Dubois et al. 2006a) large Sabellaria alveolata reefs are found mainly on the bottom third of the shore (Dubois et al. 2006b), although they may extend to mean high water neaps or into shallow subtidal areas. Low salinity areas seem to be avoided (UKBAP. 2008). The worms require a hard substrate, from pebbles to bedrock, on which to attach, and a good supply of suspended sediment for tube formation, and particulate organic matter (POM) for feeding. The cobble skear at Heysham Flat and the hydrodynamic regime of Morecambe Bay provide ideal conditions.

Wilson (1971) reported that the worms have few natural enemies, and that most damage and destruction to colonies is caused by wave action. However, although they can survive burial for weeks or even months, they are killed by prolonged smothering by sand or mussels. With the tube openings covered they are unable to extend the cilia for particle capture and feeding, or sand-grain capture for tube building (Gruet. 1984). Spawning may occur biannually and mainly in summer (Gruet. 1986) – at Duckpool, Cornwall July was the major spawning time (Wilson. 1974). Larval recruitment is stochastic. The pelagic planktonic larvae

Page 14 of 83 require the presence of adult cement for settlement to occur, although they are able to postpone metamorphosis and remain suspended in the water column for weeks until favourable conditions return (Wilson. 1968a). It has been reported that settlement may occur as late as November, December or even January (Wilson. 1974). Recovery of a reef depends on new settlement, and settlement will be adversely affected if the adults are covered (Dubois et al. 2006a). However, Wilson (1974) does assert that the presence of a single worm could lead to the establishment or rebuilding of a colony.

Gruet‟s (1986) work in Mont Saint-Michel provided evidence of the cyclical nature of the morphology of the reef, in that case covering a ten-year cycle. Five stages were identified: primary settlement, growth, secondary settlement, a platform phase and a destruction phase, which provides dead eroded reef on which new settlement can occur.

Cook (2008) and Woombs (1999) both comment on the appearance of the Sabellaria alveolata reef here as a fairly recent occurrence (since 1995), possibly due to the erection of the new sea defences at Morecambe and consequent hydrodynamic changes. Prior to this the area was classed as a mature mussel bed. It is clear that Mytilus edulis and Sabellaria alveolata co-exist on Heysham Flat Skear. Whether they are in direct competition for space or food, or whether there is a degree of mutualism is not clear.

Trample Damage by Mussel Fishermen:

The preceding data suggests that colonies of Sabellaria alveolata will be inundated by mussel mud during a dense mussel recruitment season and therefore allowing hand-harvesting of mussels may not further damage the worms. It is useful to look at research already conducted on anthropomorphic pressures on Sabellaria alveolata reefs. In particular CCW‟s (Countryside Council for Wales) report argues that any access to fishing grounds across intertidal benthic habitats must be managed to minimise impacts (Tyler- Walters & Arnold. 2008). They report that Sabellaria alveolata reefs have intermediate intolerance to trampling, where as long as the trampling is not continuous and non-vehicular, they are able to repair and stabilise relatively quickly. Continuous trampling tends to form gaps, which increase through wave action, becoming non-repairable.

Four-wheel ATVs were found to create a net land impact of ca 400 times the relative impact of a walker, as might be expected. Add to that the weight of bags of mussels loaded on to an ATV and it becomes sensible when managing the fishery to restrict access on to any areas containing Sabellaria alveolata to foot traffic only to minimise the impact.

NWIFCA Management of the Fishery to Protect the Reef:

The NWIFCA has undertaken HRAs of the seed mussel fishery for many years, and in order to ensure the fishery is Habitats Regulations compliant an exclusion zone has been implemented and closely enforced to keep fishing activity, including access, off the main reef area (as mapped from historic data and shown in Annex C).

The heavy inundation and smothering of the reef by dense mussel and mussel mud in recent years has seen the reef become highly degraded and in poor condition. Annual recruitment of worms in late winter / early spring has occurred on exposed old reef, but growth and development has soon been thwarted by subsequent settlement of young mussel. Numerous inspections are made by NWIFCA scientists each year, and provide evidence of the succession occurring on the skear, whereby i) as the channel in the north shifts, areas of sand are colonised and apparently stabilised by sandmason (Lanice conchilega); ii) Sabellaria alveolata subsequently settles and grows rapidly with healthy looking hummock formations; iii) mussel moves on to the forms, whether as newly settled individuals or juvenile mussel moving from other areas on the skear, and iv) the worms become overcome by them.

In 2016, Natural England provided clear Conservation Advice (Annex G) for the honeycomb worm reef, even in degraded state, that the underlying 3-D reef should be protected. An exclusion zone was implemented for the fishery even though the reef appeared to be almost destroyed. The same approach was intended for 2017. However an inspection of the skear on 24th May provided clear evidence that across the majority of the reef there were no underlying reef structures remaining. Mussel was settled on

Page 15 of 83 bare cobble – possibly for the first time in over a decade – and is growing on rapidly, putting down its mussel mud.

Natural England representatives inspected the site on 12th June and confirmed that other than around the fringes of the skear where some remains of old worm mounds were still present, there was little or no remaining reef. Their advice for 2017 has consequently changed (Annex G), and the exclusion zone changed. Harvesting of seed mussel will be approved on much of the skear with the fringes being protected. This will be physically marked out on the skear as well as represented in maps within the authorisation conditions provided to permitted hand-gatherers.

A Byelaw 13a closure is also proposed to protect the fringes of the reef from size mussel gathering.

By way of interest, there is are healthy areas of Sabellaria alveolata on the skears at Fleetwood particularly Rossall and Neckings scars – and it might be reasonable to assume that this may supply larvae to rejuvenate the Heysham reef in future years.

Consequently the NWIFCA is confident that the harvesting of the seed mussels by hand at Heysham Flat will have no risk to the conservation feature, and therefore no risk of adverse effect on the integrity or conservation status of the SAC or SPA features of Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary.

7.1.2 Litter

The NWIFCA has years of experience of policing this fishery, being present on the skear when fishing is being conducted and is confident that litter levels are very low. Fishing occurs around four hours around low water, and the fishery is within 1.5km from the shore, and the town of Morecambe with its facilities and amenities. The tonning up area and buyers are positioned either at the top of the beach or in the Battery car park. The most likely form of litter, if any, is discarded and full mussel sacks which fall off quads and trailers. These are often recovered on the following tide, or if observed by NWIFCA officers cut open, the mussels returned to the beach, and the net bags removed. The fact IFCOs are present during most tides of fishing means that litter levels are monitored and any potential issues highlighted and dealt with.

Consequently the NWIFCA is confident that litter from the harvesting of the seed mussels by hand at Heysham Flat will have no risk of adverse effect on the integrity or conservation status of the SAC or SPA features of Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary.

7.1.3 Removal of target species from biogenic mussel bed communities

The proposal is to harvest seed mussels by hand from a bed which has been described as ephemeral (Dare. 1976) that is habitually subject to extensive mussel settlement that is unstable, lying on soft mud and which recurrently gets scoured out by autumn / winter storms. This description has been borne out through a time series of survey work (MAFF and NW&NWSFC Surveys. 1968 – 2001. NWIFCA 2011 - 16). Experience suggests that if left un-fished, these mussels may be subject to rapid loss through erosion or predation.

The site inspections and surveys in May and June showed the main skear, Knott End skear and the bottom skears are all carpeted in dense, fast growing mussel putting down mud in the habitual way. Once this becomes soft and loose that there is a short window of opportunity for the resource to be harvested and used for relaying in other areas or subject to more or less total loss.

NWIFCA Officers have records of the spatfall, and survival of mussels in Morecambe Bay over many years. Mortality of first-year mussels is usually very high. If they are not harvested when small in many years virtually the entire stock of mussels has been lost in the autumn and winter storms of their first year, due to erosion of the soft mussel mud put down by the mussels. Even when a proportion of the stock has survived this winter period, such as 2014-15 it is rare for it to grow through to size as the following year’s spatfall and resulting mussel mud smoothers it.

Page 16 of 83 Therefore the physical removal by harvesting will not result in a significant difference in remaining stock than natural processes.

Consequently the NWIFCA is confident that the harvesting of the seed mussels by hand from Heysham Flat skear will have no greater effect on the mussel communities on intertidal boulder and cobble skears than natural processes, and will have no risk of adverse effect on the integrity or conservation status of the SAC or SPA features of Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary.

SPA Features

NB. Assessment of Mussel Biomass

Although the NWIFCA utilises survey methodologies such as the ‘Dutch Wand’ methodology to assess mussel biomass, enormous questions remain over the validity of such data for more than a few days after the survey time in an area such as Morecambe Bay, and its application to management decisions over mussel resource.

Mussel can and does recruit to skears in the Bay in extraordinarily dense aggregations, and depending on tidal height and period of inundation, as well as sea temperature and chlorophyll levels, can put on growth exceedingly fast, thus increasing biomass equally rapidly. On the contrary, the highly dynamic environment and the process of mussel putting down deep levels of soft mud in pseudofaeces, can also lead to rapid erosion, scour and wash out so that biomass can be diminished overnight. Dense recruitment also results in high levels of competition for food and space, and the act of fishing can have a ‘thinning’ effect which can actually lead to an increase in biomass.

Cockles stocks in the Bay have also been surveyed and data provided in Annex F. Cockles are an important resource for oystercatchers, but in light of the fact cockle stocks are highly naturally variable, and there was a period from 2008 – 2015 with very few cockles present, it is more probable that oystercatchers are more reliant on mussels and other food sources than cockles. However, the fact there are stocks present in summer 2017 indicates an additional provision.

The NWIFCA is working with Natural England, the RSPB and Cumbria Wildlife Trust to agree a pragmatic approach to ensuring sufficient bird food resource is available in the Bay at all times of year for SPA species. The NWIFCA is currently maintaining up-to-date ‘stock status’ records of all cockle and mussel beds within the Bay (and the rest of the NWIFCA District) to provide a readily available overview of abundance of the resource. Should partner agencies or NWIFCA scientists trigger concern over lack of resource, a change in management will also be triggered.

7.2.1 Removal of target species (mussels) for Common eider, Eurasian Oystercatcher, Red Knot and Herring Gull Oystercatcher and Knot a) Natural England have provided the following on the importance of the EMS to oystercatcher:

‘The non-breeding population of Eurasian oystercatchers (hereafter oystercatchers) in Great Britain is estimated to be 320,000 individuals; the 820,000 biogeographic estimate relates to the ostralegus population. Oystercatchers are widespread but slowly declining nationally since the 1990s.

WeBS data show the pSPA held a five year peak mean value of 55,888 individuals (2009/10 – 2013/14), representing 6.8% of the biogeographic population. Oystercatchers were part of the original citation for Morecambe Bay SPA, and the site ranks consistently first for oystercatcher abundance in the UK. However, the Duddon Estuary also supports several thousand individuals, meaning the combined pSPA holds a substantial proportion of both British (17.5%) and biogeographic (6.8%) totals.

Condition Assessment: Not Assessed

Page 17 of 83

No WeBS alert. The number of oystercatcher overwintering in Morecambe Bay has remained stable at the site, NW and GB levels but the increasing proportion of regional numbers supported by this site suggests that the environmental conditions remain relatively favourable and site is becoming increasingly important on a regional scale’. b) Natural England have provided the following on the importance of the EMS to knot:

‘The non-breeding population of knots in Great Britain is estimated to be 320,000 individuals; the 450,000 biogeographic estimate relates to the islandica race thought to winter in Britain. Knots are widely distributed throughout Britain in the winter and numbers have been largely stable over the past 30 years. Morecambe Bay consistently ranks amongst the sites holding the greatest number of knots in the UK.

WeBS data show the pSPA held a five year peak mean value of 32,739 individuals (2009/10 – 2013/14), representing 7.3% of the biogeographic population. Knots were part of the original citations for Morecambe Bay SPA and Duddon Estuary SPA, reflecting the importance of both areas; the former holds larger numbers than the latter, which has undergone some recent declines in numbers.

This species (islandica subspecies) migrates from breeding grounds in north eastern Canada, Greenland and Iceland to winter on this SPA and other sites within the UK and Europe. Migration starts in August with peak numbers recorded in September and October. The birds return to their breeding grounds from March with very few individuals remaining into May.

Condition Assessment: Not Assessed

Medium alert, medium term but treat with caution. Numbers overwintering in Morecambe Bay have fluctuated making interpretation of the underlying trend difficult. Numbers at NW and GB levels have remained relatively stable long term’.

Young mussels are a key food resource for waders such as oystercatchers and knot in particular. However, the mussels that will be harvested are not attached to the hard substrate, and are likely to be lost through erosion. Observations over many years indicate that this process will accelerate through the autumn period, and that the harvestable stock may not persist, and will not remain available as prey for birds.

The current stock on the Heysham Flat bed have been assessed as ephemeral and subject to loss by natural processes if left un-fished. Observations over the last few years have substantiated that mussels remaining from unfished areas can sometimes overwinter but have then been smothered by a new recruitment and its associated unstable mussel mud before reaching size.

Assessments of all the cockle and mussel beds within Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary have been made to inform this HRA, and the likely impacts on bird prey resource. Details are given in Annex F. Additional undisturbed mussel resource which will not be fished is situated on the two adjacent skears – Knott End skear (~5ha) and a smaller skear of around 1.27ha, which are inundated with seed mussel. There is also a substantial volume on Foulney, with varying size classes, and a minimum estimated biomass of 4611 tonnes. This bed is open as a size mussel fishery to hand-gatherers at the present time, but is unlikely to see much activity as much of the size mussel is ‘pearled’ as is usual on this skear one it reaches around 42mm, and the majority of the mussel on the bed is undersize.

Other undisturbed areas with lesser amounts are situated along the foreshore between Foulney Ditch and at Low Bottom in North Morecambe Bay, with estimated biomass of 3888 tonnes and 2935 tonnes respectively. There is also limited but not insignificant resource at Kings Scar and Black Scar, Fleetwood.

Page 18 of 83 proportion of this mussel will actually be fished (expected maximum 1000 tonnes from 2014, 2015 and 2016 returns, 503, 684 and 268 respectively), therefore leaving a large resource for birds.

Consequently the NWIFCA is confident that the harvesting of the seed mussels by hand from Heysham Flat skear will not affect the feeding of oystercatchers and knot as alternative areas holding mussel within their size preference are available and are not being fished. There will therefore be no risk of adverse effect on the integrity or conservation status of the SAC or SPA features of Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary.

Herring Gull

Natural England have provided the following on the importance of the EMS to herring gull:

‘The breeding population of European herring gulls in Great Britain is estimated to be 130,000 pair. This estimate relates to the race argenteus, which all breeding birds in GB are considered to belong to. Herring gulls have declined markedly in recent years (-30% in the UK between 2000 and 2013), and are now on the ‘red list’ of Birds of Conservation Concern because of longer-term declines.

Herring gulls were a qualifying feature of the original Morecambe Bay SPA, holding 10,000 pairs according to the citation (1991). This represented 7% of the GB population at time of classification, though the proportion of the biogeographic population is not given (retrospectively this has been calculated as 1.0%). It was not a feature of the Duddon Estuary SPA, as only very small numbers of pairs breed at Hodbarrow. Latest data (2011-2015) show the five year peak mean to have declined to 1,588 pairs (0.5% biogeographic population of 340,000 pairs); this value includes birds nesting at South Walney (within Morecambe Bay SPA) and Hodbarrow (within Duddon Estuary SPA).

The original baseline citation (1991) value of 10,000 pairs has been retained for the new pSPA.

Condition assessment: Unfavourable or unfavourable recovering

Herring gulls are omnivorous, feeding on fish (marine and freshwater), crabs, cockles and mussels in tidal flats but also on terrestrial prey items such as earthworms and beetles, and garbage. They are opportunists and take advantage of any available food resource. When seen on mussel beds it is regularly observed that they are feeding on starfish, which in turn are predating on the mussel.

Mussel prey:

The mussels that will be harvested are not attached to the hard substrate, and are likely to be lost through erosion. Observations over many years indicate that this process will accelerate through the autumn period, and that the harvestable stock may not persist, and will not remain available as prey for birds.

Page 19 of 83

Hand-gathering is not 100% efficient and may even serve to thin out the mussel on the rest of that skear, improve the bed’s stability and allow it to grow on. The level of activity predicted (based on recent years fishing) indicates that around 40 hand-gatherers maximum will prosecute the fishery and that only a proportion of this mussel will actually be fished (expected maximum 1000 tonnes from 2014, 2015 and 2016 returns, 503, 684 and 268 respectively), therefore leaving a resource for birds.

Consequently the NWIFCA is confident that the harvesting of the seed mussels by hand from Heysham Flat skear will not affect the feeding of herring gull as alternative areas holding mussel within their size preference are available and are not being fished. There will therefore be no risk of adverse effect on the integrity or conservation status of the SAC or SPA features of Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary.

Eiders

Natural England have provided the following on the importance of the EMS to eiders:

‘Eider (breeding) are considered to be non-migratory and hence not covered by the Birds Directive and SPAs. Breeding eider are a designated feature of South Walney & Piel Channel Flats SSSI (baseline population 950 prs).

Eider (non-breeding) are a main component of the SPA qualifying waterbird assemblage feature, present in numbers exceeding 1% of the GB total and exceeding 2,000 individuals. Eider are a Ramsar qualifying feature.

When the site was first classified the site supported nationally important numbers of this species (4,800 individuals: 1984/5 – 1988/9). It regularly supports over 6,000 (>8% of UK non-breeding population with 12,000 recorded in the 1990s. An aerial survey of eider by APEM commissioned by Natural England estimated a population size of 6,389 in March 2011. Current 5yr mean peak (2009/10 – 2013/14) is 5886 birds.

Condition Assessment: Not Assessed

Eiders remained relatively stable in Morecambe Bay throughout the 1990s but have declined sharply since 2000. Morecambe Bay supports a substantial proportion of the regional total of eiders, but this has fallen from over 95% in the mid-1990s to less than 40% in the most recent winters. The regional decline in eider numbers can therefore be largely traced back to the decline in the SPA. In contrast, at the national scale, numbers have remained relatively stable throughout this period, which suggests that the decline has been driven by site-specific pressures. These issues could be due to a number of different factors.

The wintering population currently exceeds the SPA baseline but Morecambe Bay has shown greater decline from the post-designation increase regionally and nationally in wintering eider population than at the national scale, suggesting site specific pressures’.

There have been concerns about the eider population and its breeding success in Morecambe Bay, and in particular those nesting on the nearby site at Walney Island, although investigations into reasons for lack of breeding success are inconclusive. There are many potential contributory factors suggested for this decline including and significantly predation by land mammals. However, one factor identified by Natural England may be the removal of seed mussel, and this factor has been fully considered in undertaking this Appropriate Assessment.

From the literature, mussels have been shown to constitute between 68% and 80% of eider diets depending upon mussel spatfall (Hilgerloh 1997). Seed mussels may be a potential food resource for eider, although there are conflicting opinions on the importance of their size preference. Goss-Custard et al. (2004) report that eiders mainly eat larger size mussels; while elsewhere eiders have been shown to preferentially target mussels in the small to intermediate size (1-40mm, generally selecting for sizes under 30mm) ranges (Bustnes 1998; Hamilton et al. 1999) and at shallow depths (Larsen & Guillemette 2000).

Page 20 of 83 Both these factors would increase energetic profitability with a reduced shell mass to flesh ratio and a reduced amount of energy lost to diving activity.

There is also evidence to support the claim that fishing thins the mussel out and can actually increase biomass until such time as natural processes remove it (Frenchette et al. 1992. Gascoigne et al. 2007. Cook. 2008).

Consequently the NWIFCA is confident that the harvesting of the seed mussels by hand from Heysham Flat skear will not affect the feeding of eiders as alternative areas holding mussel within their size preference are available and are not being fished. There will therefore be no risk of adverse effect on the integrity or conservation status of the SAC or SPA features of Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary.

Additional Note: despite the excellent work carried out during the Eider Risk Review many questions still remain around the eider population of Morecambe Bay, reasons for the apparent decline in its breeding success, predation pressures, feeding preferences and relation to the mussel fisheries. Shellfish harvesting is an important economic activity in the Bay and many of these questions have been circulating around the fisheries for many years. The NWIFCA fully supports the proposals for a full-time 3 year PhD studentship as a cost-effective way to attaining a more in-depth understanding of these issues and ideally to provide some conclusive research so that a consensus can be reached. This would facilitate a faster, more efficient HRA for each year’s fishery.

7.2.2 Visual Disturbance - Eiders The mussel beds in north Morecambe Bay are in close proximity to South Walney and Foulney Islands, which are the centre of the Morecambe Bay eider breeding colonies. Current Natural England advice states that the wintering population of eider currently exceeds the SPA baseline but Morecambe Bay has shown a greater decline from the post-designation increase regionally and nationally in wintering eider population than at the national scale, suggesting site specific pressures (Thaxter et al. 2010). This requires further investigation but suggests a precautionary approach should be adopted.

Page 21 of 83 Table 1. BTO eider annual peak data for eiders in Morecambe Bay

Years Annual Peak 2006/07 3374 2007/08 2138 2008/09 5534 2009/10 4248 2010/11 6151 2011/12 7121 2012/13 5608 2013/14 6303

As diving ducks, eiders are known to feed on submerged mussels at shallow depths (2-3m) (Larsen & Guillemette 2000) and are regularly observed at or near to the Falklands beds, Foulney Island, Low Bottom, Morecambe and Fleetwood.

The harvesting of mussels by hand-gatherers occurs over low water and is unlikely to disturb eiders feeding. However it has the potential to disturb eiders loafing around the area of the beds. There is also the potential for red breasted merganser and cormorant to be loafing in the area.

The area to be fished is restricted temporally by tides to around 1.5 hours either side of low water on tides of less than 2.0m. The area of the fishery is also limited – an estimated 14 ha. thus meaning any potential impact of disturbance is minimal.

Visual Disturbance - Eurasian oystercatcher, Red knot, Herring gull and other birds frequenting the intertidal area, including:

Ringed plover, European golden plover, Grey plover, Lapwing, Sanderling, Dunlin, Black-tailed godwit, Bar- tailed godwit, Eurasian curlew, Common redshank, Ruddy turnstone, Common shelduck, Wigeon, Northern pintail, Little egret.

The harvesting of seed mussels and the access to and from the mussel beds has the potential to affect birds feeding on the mussel beds themselves, on other parts of Heysham Flat Skear, and on the intertidal sediments adjacent to the skear or access route.

Mussels are a key food resource for oystercatchers, knot and herring gull for which Heysham Flat is considered to be an important area. The harvesting operation has the potential to disturb birds feeding on the skear and to impair their feeding over fishable periods of low water. There is also potential for disturbance to other feeding wading birds.

The inspections of Heysham Flat skear indicate that fishing activity is likely over around 14 hectares of the bed on the majority of tides below around 2.0m. The total area of skear holding mussel is estimated to be approximately 42 ha. Knott End skear covers around 5ha and a smaller skear to the west another 1.27ha, and these will always remain undisturbed and accessible to oystercatchers and other birds utilising the mussel seed (knot and herring gull). Knott End skear and the more westerly skears uncover about an hour and a half before low water on the large tides and will provide a resource for the birds during this time on all but the largest tides.

Activity is likely to be focussed to the ‘best’ areas at any one time – ie. where the mussel is loosest and densest, and subsequently disturbance affects a relatively restricted area during the uncovering period. This potentially also leaves a large area higher up the skear available to birds feeding on the smaller mussel.

Page 22 of 83

The harvesting and access operations may result in disturbance to bird species feeding on intertidal sediments. The sediments in this area are relatively sandy and observed to be of lower value to birds than muddy sediments elsewhere in the Bay, and therefore the likely effects are considered not significant. The location of the fishery centrally in the skear and the direct access route proposed between the skear and shore access will maximise the distance between sources of disturbance and the low water mark where potentially vulnerable birds such as bar-tailed godwit and curlew are most likely to be feeding.

The fishery is also restricted temporally to weekdays and daylight hours, thus reducing further any potential impact of disturbance.

Consequently the NWIFCA is confident that the harvesting of the seed mussels by hand from Heysham Flat skear will not cause disturbance to SPA bird species and there will therefore be no risk of adverse effect on the integrity or conservation status of the SAC or SPA features of Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary.

Page 23 of 83 7.3 Management and Mitigation to Ensure No Adverse Effect on the Integrity of the European Site:

Due to the potential impacts outlined above, management and mitigation measures are necessary in order to ensure effects are prevented before authorising the fishery.

Measures to be Included in the Authorisation to Fish Undersize Mussel Include:

An exclusion zone to protect the Sabellaria alveolata on the fringes of the reef, restricted access to the fishery (Byelaw 3 permit holders only), and fishery restricted temporally by tides, weekdays and daylight hours only. Full details and map of exclusion zone given in Annex H.

In order to ensure full confidence in measures to protect the Sabellaria fringing the skear, a Byelaw 13a Closure will also be implemented to include gathering of size mussel.

Page 24 of 83 Table 2: Summary of Impacts

Feature/Sub Conservation Potential pressure4 Potential ecological Level of exposure7 of Mitigation feature(s) Objective (such as abrasion, impacts of pressure exerted feature to pressure measures8 disturbance) exerted by the activity/activities on by gear type(s)5 the feature6 (reference to conservation objectives) Intertidal biogenic Maintain or restore the Abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on Abrasion/disturbance of the Sabellaria alveolata As in 7.1.1 As detailed in 7.1.1 reef: including mussel extent, distribution the surface of the seabed reef feature could damage the reef building and Sabellaria structure or function of capacity on the skear alveolata communities the feature. Litter Litter could pose potential threat to wildlife, As in 7.1.2 As detailed in 7.1.2 (Reefs) especially birds through ingestion or entanglement;

Intertidal biogenic Maintain or restore the Removal of target species Removal of target species could change the Target species is classed as As detailed in 7.1.3 reef: including mussel extent, distribution invertebrate community composition of the ephemeral and likely to wash out by and Sabellaria structure or function of skear. autumn and therefore no likelihood of alveolata communities the feature. change to community composition (Reefs) occurring than through natural events. See 7.1.3

It is therefore unlikely to have a significant effect on the extent, distribution, structure or function of the features.

4 Guidance and advice from NE. 5 Group gear types where applicable and assess individually if more in depth assessment required. 6 Document the sensitivity of the feature to that pressure (where available), including a site specific consideration of factors that will influence sensitivity. 7 Evidence based e.g. activity evidenced and footprint quantified if possible, including current management measures that reduce/remove the feature’s exposure to the activity. 8 Detail how this reduces/removes the potential pressure/impact(s) on the feature e.g. spatial/temporal/effort restrictions that would be introduced.

Page 25 of 83 Common eider, Maintain or restore the Removal of target species Removal of food source / prey items has the The level of exposure depends on time As detailed in 7.2.1 Eurasian population of each of the (mussels) potential to affect condition, productivity and of year of fishery, availability of oystercatcher, Red qualifying features, and, survival of species, as detailed in 6.2.3 alternative food resources, stock knot, Herring gull the distribution of the status and level of effort. qualifying features within the site There are large areas of mussel ground within the Bay that hold a further resource of both size and undersize mussel which knot and oystercatcher may utilise.

Target species is classed as ephemeral and likely to wash out by autumn and therefore no likelihood of change to bird food resource occurring than through natural events. See 7.2.1

Common eider, Maintain or restore the Visual disturbance Visual disturbance could impact on condition of Footprint of activity is limited and As detailed in 7.2.2 Eurasian population of each of the birds feeding or loafing in the area, by causing impact likely to be minimal. Alternative oystercatcher, Red qualifying features, and, unnecessary energy expenditure if flushed and feeding areas available. See 7.2.2 knot, Herring gull the distribution of the taking to flight. For birds feeding near the qualifying features within affected areas it could also reduce feeding the site times, and increase competition if birds are forced to concentrate into reduced feeding areas. See 6.2.3 Birds frequenting the Maintain or restore the Visual disturbance Visual disturbance could impact on condition of Footprint of activity is limited and As detailed in 7.2.2 intertidal area: little population of each of the birds feeding or loafing in the area, by causing impact likely to be minimal. Alternative egret, ringed plover, qualifying features, and, unnecessary energy expenditure if flushed and feeding areas available. See 7.2.2 European golden the distribution of the taking to flight. For birds feeding near the plover, Grey plover, qualifying features within affected areas it could also reduce feeding Lapwing, Sanderling, the site times, and increase competition if birds are Dunlin, Black-tailed forced to concentrate into reduced feeding godwit, Bar-tailed areas. See 6.2.3 godwit, Eurasian curlew, Common redshank, Ruddy turnstone, Common shelduck, Wigeon, Northern pintail, Gulls

Page 26 of 83 8. Conclusion9

The natural condition of the stock being ephemeral, plus the management and mitigation measures incorporated into this fishery, and the use of an effective enforcement team of NWIFCA Officers allows the NWIFCA to conclude that the seed mussel hand-gathered fishery at Heysham Flat, Morecambe Bay during August to November will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European Site.

9. In-combination assessment14

9.1 In Combination Assessment of seed mussel dredge fishing in the site:

There is currently a proposal to authorise a seed mussel dredge fishery on ephemeral stock on the two furthest west skears at Heysham, covering a total area estimated from helicopter tracking of 6.3ha. This fishery will be subject to a separate HRA. The In Combination effects have been assessed here:

9.1.1 SAC Features / sub-features / SPA supporting habitats

H1130. Estuaries and H1170. Reefs

Intertidal biogenic reef: including mussel communities

The dredge fishery will only be authorised if the conditions outlined in 4.2 above are operating on the stock on the outer skears, in which case the mussel will be lost to natural processes. There are therefore no in combination effects.

Removal of Target Species

9.1.2 SPA and Ramsar Features

Removal of target species (mussels) as prey resource for Common eider, Eurasian oystercatcher, Red knot, Herring gull;

Visual disturbance - little egret, Common eider, Eurasian oystercatcher, Red knot, Herring gull – other birds frequenting the intertidal area: Ringed plover, European golden plover, Grey plover, Lapwing, Sanderling, Dunlin, Black-tailed godwit, Bar-tailed godwit, Eurasian curlew, Common redshank, Ruddy turnstone, Common shelduck, Wigeon, Northern pintail, Gulls

The fisheries operate at different times, with the dredging occurring over high water on neap / neap-ish tides, and the hand-gathering operating at low water on spring / spring-ish tides. There will be no overlap in relation to disturbance of birds. There are therefore no in combination effects.

9 If conclusion of adverse effect alone an in-combination assessment is not required.

Page 27 of 83 10. Summary of consultation with Natural England

Natural England representatives attended the heliflight on 25th May, and carried out field inspections with NWIFCA scientists in May and 12th June 2017. They provided written confirmation of agreed management in relation to Sabellaria alveolata this year.

11. Integrity test

The NWIFCA concludes no adverse effect on the integrity of the European Site providing the management and mitigation measures of the Heysham Flat seed mussel fishery 2017 are implemented and upheld.

Page 28 of 83 Annex A1: NWIFCA Existing Mussel Hand-gathering Regulations a) NWIFCA Byelaw 3 – Permit to Fish for Cockles and Mussels

NWIFCA

Page 29 of 83

Page 30 of 83

Page 31 of 83

Page 32 of 83

Page 33 of 83

Page 34 of 83

Page 35 of 83 b) NWSFC BYELAW 12 - RESTRICTIONS ON FISHING FOR BIVALVE MOLLUSCAN SHELLFISH

This byelaw applies to that part of the District within a line drawn on the seaward side of the baselines 6 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom is measured. For the purposes of this paragraph "the baselines" means the baselines as they existed at 25th January 1983 in accordance with the Territorial Waters Order in Council 1964 (1965 III p.6452A) as amended by the Territorial Waters (Amendment) Order in Council 1979 (1979 II p.2866).

1. No person shall fish for bivalve molluscan shellfish, except

a) by hand; or

b) in the case of cockles with a craam, rake, spade or jumbo; or

c) in the case of mussels with a rake or in that part of the District which is inshore of a line drawn North true from Penmaen-Bach Point (Latitude 530 17.3’ North, Longitude 030 52.8’ West) to the high water mark at Gt. Ormes Head with a rake, provided that the rake is no more than 1 metre in width and that it is only used from a boat when the mussel bed has at least 1 metre of water over it; or (applies only to Wales)

d) when using a dredge or other appliance where:

(i) such dredge or appliance is of a pattern approved in writing by the Committee, the Committee having been advised by scientists who in the opinion of the Committee appear to be suitably qualified to comment on the conservation and environmental implications;

(ii) such use is in accordance with a written authorisation issued by the Committee and with any conditions subject to which that authorisation was issued, including prohibitions on use at particular times, or in particular areas and definitions of the fishing instrument. The Committee may also require as a condition that returns be made on the species and quantities of bivalve molluscan shellfish taken.

2. no person shall take or use on any mussel bed, any sledge or other contrivance which in the opinion of the Committee is likely to crush or loosen the mussels or loosen the foundations of the bed, without a written authorisation issued by the Committee.

3. no person shall dig in any mussel bed for any purpose without a written authorisation issued by the Committee.

Byelaw confirmed 21.01.98

Page 36 of 83 c) NWSFC Byelaw 13a – Cockles and Mussels Management of the Fishery and NWSFC Byelaw 16 = Shell Fishery – Temporary Closure

Page 37 of 83 Annex A2: Protection of Sabellaria alveolata reef from Bottom Towed Gear

NWIFCA Byelaw 6 – sections relevant to Heysham Flat:

Page 38 of 83

Page 39 of 83

Page 40 of 83 Annex B: Site Maps

Page 41 of 83

National Nature Reserves and SSSI sites within Morecambe Bay and bordering on the proposed Fishery Order area.

Other Marine Protected Areas adjoining the Morecambe Bay and Duddon Estuary ES.

Page 42 of 83 Annex C: Habitat Maps

Broad Scale Map

Page 43 of 83 Historic Mapping of Heysham Flat Sabellaria alveolata reef

The shaded area (2005 extent) is used as the main historic reef area to be protected.

Page 44 of 83 Annex D: Fishing activity maps

Heysham Flat skears

The distribution of cockle and mussel beds (orange and blue respectively) within Morecambe Bay and the Duddon Estuary in 2007.

Aerial view of Heysham Flat skears from west looking landward 25th May 2017

Page 45 of 83 Annex E: Fishing activity methods

Page 46 of 83

Hand-gathering seed mussel at Heysham Flat

Page 47 of 83 Annex F: Morecambe Bay Cockle and Mussel Stocks to End June 2017

Mussels: i. Fleetwood (5 scars) – Rossall, Neckings, Kings Scar, Perch Scar, Black Scar

Inspection 26-06-17 0.6m tide.

Patches of live Sabellaria alveolata on Rossall and Neckings scar. Patchy old barnacled mussel present on all scars but at low densities. Kings Scar contains a consistent patch of mussel three hectares in size which consists of mussel approximately 20mm in length. Perch Scar is bare except for old barnacled mussel scattered around channel edge ~ 20% cover just on this patch. Scoured mussel mud remains from previous years. Black Scar has had a spat settlement (50% coverage) of small spat (less than 5mm).

Page 48 of 83 ii. Heysham Flat

Dutch Wand Survey 28-06-17 – 1.0m tide

Page 49 of 83 Line transects were completed and using a Dutch Wand the number of hits and misses of live mussel were recorded to give percentage cover. The transects start and finish at the edge of the mussel bed. A mussel sample was taken every 40 hits using a 10cm diameter corer. Twenty-two transects were completed and twenty-eight samples collected.

The total weight of live mussel and the size frequency of each sample were recorded. The samples were sub- sampled with 50 individuals from each sample measured and recorded. From the transect and sample data, it is estimated that within the bed area highlighted on the map (34.8 ha) there are 3212 tonnes of mussel. The value for tonnage of size mussel within this total has been extrapolated from only four individual size mussels found in the samples and must be viewed with caution. It proves an estimate of 37 tonnes. These four size mussels where collected from the edge of Dallam Dyke within the remaining area of Sabellaria alveolata reef, which is the area of the proposed exclusion zone.

The bed area surveyed here (34.8 ha) is smaller than surveyed in previous years (62.6 ha). In 2015 a Dutch Wand survey was carried out covering a larger area of the main skear (Knott End skear was not included), starting where the mussel began in 2015. This area was not surveyed this time as much of it is cobble/boulder and dead shell. The north east of this area has also been covered in gut weed with little mussel underneath, and so was not included in this survey.

Condition information (percentage of mussel meat) of the 4 size mussel was collected. The mussels ranged from 45mm to 49mm in length, and the condition varied between 36.5% and 44.1% with a mean of 40.5%.

The total length frequency of mussels for the bed area is provided below with the highest frequency of mussel in the 15 to 25mm size ranges – ie. seed mussel.

Page 50 of 83 The weight of each sample has been standardised for the weight of mussel (kg per m2) and has been mapped below. The biomass of mussel varies across the bed, increasing towards Dallam Dyke, and on to Knott End skear where the mussel coverage of mussel is highest and covers most of the ground. The highest densities, and the size mussel, are found along Dallam Dyke within the area of remaining Sabellaria alveolata reef. Across the rest of the bed there is a dense settlement of seed mussel, within the 15-25 mm range. This continues up to the area around Big Stone, after which the mussel becomes less dense. The majority here are still within the 15-20 mm size range.

Heysham Flat Bottom skears

From the heliflight carried out on 23rd June and tracking round the bottom skears the following map was produced.

Page 51 of 83

The estimated area of the bottom skears may be an over-estimate as tracking from the helicopter is not exact – however it provides an indication of the extent of the seed mussel, which was very dense, uniform and level, on these skears, giving a combined total of 7.57 ha. As these beds are not accessible on foot the tonnage per hectare from the main Heysham Flat/ Knott End skear has been used as a proxy to estimate biomass – giving 92.3 tonnes per ha, and a total of 699 tonnes on these three bottom skear.

Overall tonnage for all Heysham skears combined is therefore estimated at the end of June 2017 as 3911 tonnes.

Page 52 of 83 iii. Low Bottom (Between oyster frames and Foulney Ditch) and Foulney Ditch North Morecambe Bay

Dutch Wand Mussel Survey 22-06-2017 – 1.3m tide

Line transects were completed and using a Dutch Wand the number of hits and misses of live mussel were recorded to give percentage cover. The transects start and finish at the edge of the mussel bed on the west of the bed and at the oyster frames on the east of the bed. A mussel sample was taken every 50 hits using a 10cm diameter corer. Seven transects were completed and 22 samples collected.

For analysis the bed was split into two areas: Foulney Ditch and Low Bottom. Foulney Ditch has a resource of larger mussel that would be under-represented if combined with the whole bed. This area is demarcated by the grey line in the map below (percentage and weight frequency).

The total weight of live mussel and size frequency of each sample was recorded. Where the number of individuals in a sample totalled >100, a sub sample of 100 were measured. Condition (percentage of mussel meat) of all mussel greater then 45mm was collected. From the transect and sample data, it is estimated that on the Foulney Ditch bed area (35.8 ha) there is 3888 tonnes of mussel of which 1075 tonnes was size mussel. On the Low Bottom bed area (62.2 ha) there is 2935 tonnes of mussel of which 404 tonnes was size mussel.

The total length frequency for the bed area is provided below, at Foulney Ditch the highest frequency of mussel is in the 15 – 25 mm range. At Low Bottom the highest frequency is in the 10-15 mm range.

A large swathe of the bed is now covered with gutweed.

Page 53 of 83

Page 54 of 83

The condition (meat content) of 11 mussels over 45 mm at Foulney Ditch, ranging from 45mm to 57mm in length was recorded, and varied between 10.77% and 30.85% with a mean of 20.88%. At Low Bottom the condition of 8 mussels over 45 mm were recorded, ranging from 45 mm to 50 mm. This varied between 17.86% and 30.08% with a mean of 24.27%.

Page 55 of 83 The weight of each size class has been standardised to the weight of each size class per metre squared. This has been mapped below. The size of the pie chart represents the weight of each sample.

Page 56 of 83 iv. Foulney

Dutch Wand Survey 25-05-17 0.8m tide

Page 57 of 83 Line transects were completed and using a Dutch Wand the number of hits and misses of live mussel were recorded to give percentage cover. The transects start and finish at the edge of the mussel bed. A mussel sample was taken every 25 hits using a 10cm diameter corer. Eleven transects were completed and 57 samples collected.

The total weight of live mussel and size frequency of each sample was recorded. Condition (percentage of mussel meat) of all mussel greater then 45mm was collected. From the transect and sample data, it is estimated that in the bed area highlighted in the map (59.12ha) there is 4611 tonnes of mussel with 322 tonnes of size mussel. The total length frequency for the bed area is provided below with the highest frequency of mussel in the 15 to 25mm size ranges. The percentage of each size frequency which has been standardised for the number of mussel per m² for each sample and has been mapped below. It can be seen there is a mix of sizes classes across the bed and within each sample, with the most abundant size class being 11-25mm which is present in all but one sample. The condition of 31 mussels over 45mm, ranging from 45mm to 65mm in length was recorded, and varied between 12.77% and 29.57% with a mean of 21.28%.

% frequency 6

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Shell length (mm)

Page 58 of 83

Page 59 of 83 Foulney - Inspection 13-06-17 - 1.8m tide

A return inspection was carried out to look for an area of size / larger mussel which had be seen on previous inspections but had not been captured in the Dutch Wand survey transects on the 25th May 2017. The area of size / larger mussel was located and six samples were collected for size class analysis. The position and percentage of each size class has been mapped below. Due to the samples containing a greater percentage of larger mussels than that recorded during the Dutch Wand survey it is likely that the estimated figure for bed biomass is lower than what is actually present. In addition the size frequency for the larger size class intervals will be under-represented. Due to the Dutch Wand methodology the two sets of data cannot be combined, nor the estimated biomass adjusted to incorporate the larger mussel.

From the heliflight on 23rd June – the bottom end of Foulney and Foulney island is now covered with gutweed. This may serve to protect the mussel as in some years, or it may smother it as in others.

v. South America

Heliflight 23rd June. 1.1m tide. Sanded over. No mussel.

Page 60 of 83 vi. Falklands

Photographs received from industry (Tim Manning) in June and provided in a separate pdf show that on the ground there is a substantial seed mussel settlement, but that there is a lack of mussel mud to date. As has been seen from the air on previous heliflights there are many gulls feeding on the bed. Mr Manning’s tracking was provided, and it shows an area of estimated at 15.6ha.

Heliflight 23rd June. 1.1m tide.

This area did not uncover totally. Some mussel and rocks were visible. It also looks green so it is possible it has a gutweed covering. The scheduled RIB inspection due on 27th June was aborted due to winds and weather. An attempt will be made to re-schedule this inspection. Further heliflights have been booked by industry for July and August.

d) Duddon Estuary - Hardacre

An inspection was carried out on 27th June following a report from a fisherman he had seen ‘black’ under the water in the channel. There is no mussel present, and only scarce patches of cobble in the channel. The rest is sanded over.

Page 61 of 83 Cockles

Maps

Maps were created showing the overall survey area, density of undersize cockle and the frequency of size classes (pie charts show the frequency of different size classes, the size of the pie chart indicates the total density of cockles present). i. Pilling

Survey scheduled for August. Possible low-level fishery in September. ii. Middleton Sands - Inspection with industry on 01-06-2017. 2.0m tide

Method: Jumbo and 0.5m2 quadrat randomly across the bed

An inspection was carried out north and south of Middleton car park. To the north there were small patches of cockle up to 150 per m² but overall the stock is low.

To the south there is a small patch of high density cockle indicated in the maps below. The cockle is one year class and ranges between 20mm and 30mm in size. The densest patch covers 3.2ha with estimated mean 700 per m². Surrounding that is a less dense area covering 7.7ha with estimated mean density of 200 per m².

It is proposed to leave this bed unfished as an undisturbed area for bird feeding should other fisheries in the Bay go ahead.

Biomass – crude estimate

Note of caution - This is a crude estimate of biomass in the dense area to the south from the data collected from the inspection, and is not supported by full survey data.

Total Area of Dense Patch to the south = 10.9ha

A crude estimate of biomass has been calculated by assigning an average weight of 7g per cockle (based on a cockle with a shell length of 26mm), with a mean density of 700 per m² for the densest area (3.2ha) and 200 per m² for the remaining area (7.7ha).

Dense Area 157 tonnes Other Area 108 tonnes

Total 265 tonnes

Page 62 of 83

Page 63 of 83 iii. Flookburgh - Survey 29-3-17(West) 26-04-17 (East)

Flookburgh survey grid was split into two (West and East), each area was surveyed on different days. Survey method: Jumbo and 0.5m2 quadrat

Survey 1 (West) - 0.7 m tide.

60 survey stations were sampled from a grid with stations 500m apart.

Survey 2 (East) - 0.6 m tide.

57 survey stations were sampled from a grid with stations 500 m apart.

Means

Means were calculated from all survey stations from both surveys with the defined bed area (zero counts on the edge of the bed have been removed).

Mean number of size cockle = 12 per m2 (min. 0, max 138)

Mean number of undersize cockle = 22 per m2 (min. 0, max 260)

Maps

Bed Area

Total Bed Area = 2608ha

Return surveys are scheduled for July with potential for a commercial fishery in September.

Page 64 of 83

Page 65 of 83

Page 66 of 83 v. Leven Sands survey 28-04-17. 0.5m tide.

Survey method: Jumbo with 0.5m2 quadrat

The survey was carried out two days before the fishery closed. Thirty-three survey stations were sampled from a grid 500m apart. Thirteen of the stations were randomly added around the grid (mainly to the south- east).

Means

Means were calculated from all survey stations with the defined bed area (zero counts on the edge of the bed have been removed).

Mean number of size cockle = 20 per m2 (min. 0, max 74)

Mean number of undersize cockle = 15 per m2 (min. 0, max 66)

Biomass

Total Bed Area = 974 ha.

Biomass was calculated based on an average of 20 size cockles per m², with an average cockle weight of 7g and a bed area of 9.74 km².

Crude biomass = 1364 tonnes.

A return surveys will be scheduled with potential for a commercial fishery in September.

Page 67 of 83

Page 68 of 83

Page 69 of 83

Page 70 of 83

Page 71 of 83 vi. Aldingham

No reports of significant stock at present. Not scheduled in for survey at present. vii. Newbiggin

No reports of significant stock at present. Not scheduled in for survey at present.

Page 72 of 83

Annex G Natural England Advice 2016 and 2017

Page 73 of 83

Page 74 of 83

Page 75 of 83

Page 76 of 83

Page 77 of 83 Annex H Authorisation to Harvest Seed Mussel – 2017

AUTHORISATION TO FISH UNDERSIZED MUSSELS FROM

HEYSHAM FLAT SKEAR 2017

All Current NWIFCA Byelaw 3 Permit Holders With effect from ??/07/17

Issue Date: ??/07/17 Expiry Date: 22/12/2017

All current Byelaw 3 permit holders are hereby authorised, under Byelaw 3, paragraph 6 (Minimum Sizes) to fish undersized mussels from Heysham Flat, excluding the area as defined in paragraph 2, and are responsible for complying with the conditions given below at paragraph 1.

1. Conditions of Authorisation

This authorisation is issued subject to the following conditions.

(a) It is only valid for the period from the issue date to the expiry date as stated above, excluding Bank Holiday Monday 28th August 2016.

(b) That the mussels shall only be gathered by hand or with a rake.

(c) That fishing shall take place only from Monday to Friday inclusive, during daylight hours, defined as one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset.

(d) The NWIFCA will close the fishery during periods of prolonged cold weather.

(e) The authorisation is only valid for current Byelaw 3 permit holders. It does not allow any other person to take or remove undersized mussels.

(f) This authorisation does not exonerate the holder from other sea fisheries legislation, nor does it prejudice any other consents the holder may need to obtain nor does it override or provide permission to go over private land.

(g) Any fishing taking place under this authorisation shall be carried out in accordance with the Authority’s Code of Conduct for Intertidal Shellfisheries.

(h) Fishing and transit by ATVs (quad bikes) or tractors in the excluded area as defined in paragraph 2 is prohibited.

Page 78 of 83 2. Definition of Excluded Area

Part of that area within Morecambe Bay known as Heysham Flat Skear as illustrated on the map attached at Annex A, west of lines A-B-C-D, and south of lines D-E-F, defined by the following co-ordinates:

Name Latitude Longitude A N 54 03.648 W 2 54.676 B N 54 03.432 W 2 54.872 C N 54 03.384 W 2 55.027 D N 54 03.312 W 2 55.010 E N 54 03.379 W 2 54.803 F N 54 03.452 W 2 53.965

3. Advisory Notes

(a) When fishing, or when operating vehicles in the vicinity of Heysham Flat Skear, take care to avoid live colonies of the Honeycomb Worm. These are a protected species, and damaging them could lead to a fine of up to £20,000, revoking of authorisations and closure of the fishery.

(b) NWIFCA officers have the power to withdraw authorisations at any point should the need arise, and will consult with Natural England throughout the duration of the fishery. Should there be concerns that losses of mussel around Morecambe Bay is occurring which will impact on the available bird feeding resource, the NWIFCA will withdraw authorisations and close the fishery.

(c) Avoid driving vehicles over the seed mussels as far as possible. Using a single access route will avoid unnecessary damage to the mussel stock.

This authorisation may be revoked by the NWIFCA at any time and any breach of the terms or conditions of this authorisation shall make it null and void.

By Order of the Authority

STEPHEN ATKINS Chief Executive

Page 79 of 83

Annex A

Heysham Flat Seed Mussel Exclusion Area 2017 In order to protect Sabellaria alveolata on the fringes of the skear, all fishing activity including access is prohibited west of lines A-B-C-D, and south of lines D-E-F.

Page 80 of 83 Annex G References

Bustnes, JO. (1998). Selection of blue mussels Mytilus edulis, by Common eiders, Somateria mollisima, by size in relation to shell content. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76: 1987 – 1790. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z98-111

CCW? (2011). Consideration of risks involved with the removal of mussel seed from the Salisbury Bank, Dee Estuary, that may contain the non-native Chinese Mitten Crab Eriocheir sinensis. Report for Welsh Government.

Cook, B. (2007/8/9). Various personal communications. NW&NWSFC.

Cook, B. (2008). Seed mussel removal from Foulney Twist Appropriate Assessment. North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee – unpublished.

Cook, A.S.C.P, & Burton, N.H.K. 2010. A review of the potential impacts of marine aggregate extraction on Seabirds. Marine Environment Protection Fund (MEPF) Project 09/P130

Dare, P.J. (1976). Settlement, growth and production of the mussel Mytilus edulis L. in Morecambe Bay, England. Fish. Invest. Minist. Agric. Fish. Food lond. Ser. II. 28: 1-25

Dubois, S., Retiere, C. & Olivier, F. (2002). Biodiversity associated with Sabellaria alveolata (Polychaeta: Sabellariidae) reefs: effects of human disturbance. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK. 82. pp. 817-826.

Dubois, S., Barille, L., Cognie, B. & Beninger, P. (2005). Particle capture and processing mechanisms in Sabellaria alveolata (Polychaeta: Sabellariidae). Marine Ecology Progress Series. 301. pp. 159-171. . Dubois, S., Barille, L., Cognie, B. & Beninger, P. (2006a). Feeding mechanisms of the polychaete Sabellaria alveolata revisited: reply to Riisgard & Nielson (2006). Marine Ecology Progress Series. 328. pp. 307-311.

Dubois, S., Commito, J.A. Olivier, F. & Retiere, C. (2006b). Effects of epibionts on Sabellaria alveolata (L.) biogenic reefs and their associated fauna in the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 68. pp. 635-646.

Dubois, S., Comtet, T., Retiere, C. & Thiebaut, E. (2007). Distribution and retention of Sabellaria alveolata larvae (Polychaeta: Sabellariidae) in the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel, France. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 346. pp. 243-254.

Essink, K. 1999. Ecological effects of dumping of dredged sediments; options for management. Journal of Coastal Conservation. 5: 69-80.

Egerton, S. (2014). Distribution mapping and health assessment of honeycomb worm, Sabellaria alveolata, reefs on Heysham Flat, Lancashire.

Foster, V. (2015). Update 2014: Distribution mapping and health assessment of honeycomb worm, Sabellaria alveolata, reefs on Heysham Flat, Lancashire.

Frechette, M., Aitken, A.E. & Page, L. 1992). Interdependence of food and space limitation of a benthic suspension feeder: consequences for self-thinning relationships. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 83: 55-62.

Furness, R, W., Tasker, M, L. 2000. Seabird – fishery interactions: quantifying the sensitivity of seabirds to reductions in sandeel abundance and identification of key areas for sensitive seabirds in the North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol 202: 253-264.

Page 81 of 83 Gascoigne, J., Osborn, G., Kantola, K., Cook, B., Galanidi, M., Saurel, C., Donald, E. and Kaiser, M. (2007). Partial harvesting of intertidal seed mussel beds: consequences for mussel growth and mussel bed biodiversity. (Unpublished?)

Goss-Custard, J.D., Stillman R.A., West, A.D., Caldow, R.W.G., Triplet, P., le V. dit Durell S.E.A. & McGrprty, S. (2004). When enough is not enough: shorebirds and shellfishing. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B. 271, 233-237.

Gruet, Y. (1984). Granulometric Evolution of the Sand Tube in Relation to growth of the Polychaete Annelid Sabellaria alveolata (Linne) (Sabellariidae). Ophelia. 23(2). pp. 181-193

Gruet, Y. (1986). Spatio-temporal Changes of Sabellarian Reefs Built by Sedentary Polychaete Sabellaria alveolata (LINNE). Marine Ecology. 7(4). pp. 303-319.

Hamilton, D.J., Nudds, T.D. and Neate, J. (1999). Size-Selective Predation of Blue Mussels (Mytilus edulis) by Common Eiders (Somateria mollissima) under Controlled Field Conditions. The Auk. Vol. 116, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 403-416 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4089374?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Hilgerloh (1997). Predation by birds on blue mussel Mytilus edulis beds of the tidal flats of Spiekeroog (southern North Sea). Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 146. 61-72.

Knott, M. (2009). The Effect on the Stability of the Reefs Built by the Honeycomb Worm (Sabellaria alveolata) in relation to the population density of the Blue Mussel (Mytilus edulis) and the Implications for the management of the seed mussel fishery at Heysham Flat Skear, Morecambe Bay, England. Dissertation as part of BSc (Hons) Degree in Marine Biology & Coastal Zone Management. Lancaster University with Blackpooland the Fylde College.

Larsen, J.K. and Guillemette, M. (2000). Influence of annual variation in food supply on abundance of wintering common eiders Somateria mollissima MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES. Vol. 201: 301– 309. http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/201/m201p301.pdf

MAFF and NW&NWSFC Surveys. 1968 – 2001.

Maree, B.A, Wabless, R.M, Fairweather T.P, Sullivan, B.J, Yates, O 2014. Significant reductions in mortality of threatened seabirds in a South African trawl fishery. Animal Conservation. Volume 17, issue 6 pages 520-529.

Mettam, C., Conneely, M.E. & White, S.J. (1994). Benthic macrofauna and sediments in the Severn Estuary. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 51 pp. 71-81.

Natural England (2011). Mussel fisheries in Morecambe Bay: a potential risk to eider ducks? An investigation by Natural England following a risk review of European marine sites – DRAFT.

NWIFCA – TSB Minutes. (9th August 2016). http://www.nw-ifca.gov.uk/app/uploads/TSB-2016-Minutes-9- Aug.pdf

Oliver, C. (2016). Update 2015 Distribution mapping and health assessment of honeycomb worm, Sabellaria alveolata, reefs on Heysham Flat, Lancashire.

Porras, R., Bataller, J.V., Murgui, E. & Torregrosa, M.T. (1996). Trophic Structure and Community Composition of Polychaetes Inhabiting Some Sabellaria alveolata (L) Reefs Along the Valencia Gulf Coast, Western Mediterranean. Marine Ecology. 14(4). pp. 583-602.

Thaxter et al. (2010). Wintering population of eider currently exceeds the SPA baseline but Morecambe Bay has shown greater decline from the post-designation increase regionally and nationally in wintering

Page 82 of 83 eider population than at the national scale, suggesting site specific pressures. http://app.bto.org/webs- reporting/?tab=alerts

Tyler-Walters, H. & Arnold, C. (2008). Sensitivity of Intertidal Benthic Habitats to Impacts Caused by Access to Fishing Grounds. Report to Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru / Countryside Council for Wales from the Marine Life Information Network. (MarLIN). UK. UKBAP. 2008.

Wilson, D.P. (1968a). The settlement behaviour of the larvae of Sabellaria alveolata (L.) Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK. 48. 387-435.

Wilson, D.P. (1968b). Some aspects of the development of eggs and larvae of Sabellaria alveolata (L.) Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK. 48. 367-386.

Wilson, D.P. (1971). Sabellaria colonies at Duckpool, North Cornwall. 1961 – 1970. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK. 51. 509-580.

Wilson, D.P. (1974). Sabellaria colonies at Duckpool, North Cornwall. 1971 – 1972, with a note for May 1973. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK. 54. 393-436.

Woolmer, A.P. 2011a. Standard Operating Procedure for screening seed mussel beds for the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis). Report to Bangor Mussel Producers Association. pp 11.

Woolmer, A.P. 2011b. Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) Assessment Salisbury Bank Seed Mussel Bed (Dee Estuary): Dredge Survey. Report to Bangor Mussel Producers Association. pp 5

Woolmer, A.P. 2011c. Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) Assessment Salisbury Bank Seed Mussel Bed (Dee Estuary): Timed Search Foot Survey. Report to Bangor Mussel Producers Association. pp 8

Woombs, M. (1999). Monitoring of Biotopes on Rocky Skears in Morecambe Bay, European Marine Site. A Report for English Nature. W.A. Marine & Environment.

Page 83 of 83